Re: How about a typology for input methods

--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Constable" <petercon@...> wrote:

> - in some scripts, the (prototypically atomic) symbols correspond to
> phones / phonemes, and there is no graphical structure

corresponding to

> other units of phonological structure

I agree

>
> - in some scripts, the symbols correspond to syllables; apart from
> modifications to the symbols (on the order of strokes), there are no
> other graphical structures corresponding to other units of

phonological

> structure
>

I agree

> - in some scripts, the symbols correspond (prototypically) to

phonemes,

> but there are also graphical structures that correspond

(prototypically)

> to phonological syllables

I think here that this system could be a member of both classes. Why
create a separate class?

>
> - in some scripts (notably Chinese), the graphical units correspond

to

> units of meaning, or can be analyzed into two graphic components
> representing a semantic value and a syllabic value

It sounds good but I don't read more than a little Chinese. I do read
enough Greek, Hebrew, Tamil and Cree to comment of those scripts.

>
> The second of these groups encompasses syllabaries and abugidas. If
> several people consider this basis for classification useful and

also

> consider it useful to recognize that second group as a whole as a
> salient class of scripts, then I'm sure a conventional term will get
> used and then potentially "abugida" and "syllabary" might end up

being

> considered "sub-types" rather than "types". If any of those things
> doesn't occur, however, I wouldn't expect it to become convention

that

> these are considered "sub-types" rather than "types".

How many people who do work with Cree, Tamil and Ethiopic really
think that these are all one consistent type but not the same type as
Cherokee?

Suzanne McCarthy